Ottawa Appeals Ruling on Assisted Suicide

[tenni]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-to-appeal-bc-ruling-on-assisted-suicide/article4415349/

The federal government will appeal a British Columbia Supreme Court ruling which struck down Canada’s ban on assisted suicide, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said Friday.


The landmark ruling last month said the ban is unconstitutional and gave the federal government a year to rewrite it.


But Judge Lynn Smith also granted an immediate exemption to the law, allowing Gloria Taylor, one of the women who brought the lawsuit, to die with a doctor’s help.

“The government is of the view that the Criminal Code provisions that prohibit medical professionals, or anyone else, from counselling or providing assistance in a suicide, are constitutionally valid,” the statement said.
“The government also objects to the lower court’s decision to grant a ‘constitutional exemption’ resembling a regulatory framework for assisted suicide.”


Ms. Taylor, who has Lou Gehrig’s disease, or ALS, hailed the lower court’s ruling because it gives her control over when and how she dies.


In her complex, 395-page judgment, Judge Smith said the ban on physician-assisted suicide violates two sections of the charter of rights covering the right to equality and the right to life, liberty and security of the person. She said the law must allow for doctor-assisted suicide in cases where patients have a serious illness or disability and are experiencing intolerable suffering. Such patients must ask for the help, must be free of coercion and cannot be clinically depressed, the ruling noted.

Would you want the right to assisted suicide if you had a terminal disease with no hope for recovery?

[darkeyes]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-to-appeal-bc-ruling-on-assisted-suicide/article4415349/

The federal government will appeal a British Columbia Supreme Court ruling which struck down Canada’s ban on assisted suicide, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said Friday.


The landmark ruling last month said the ban is unconstitutional and gave the federal government a year to rewrite it.


But Judge Lynn Smith also granted an immediate exemption to the law, allowing Gloria Taylor, one of the women who brought the lawsuit, to die with a doctor’s help.

“The government is of the view that the Criminal Code provisions that prohibit medical professionals, or anyone else, from counselling or providing assistance in a suicide, are constitutionally valid,” the statement said.
“The government also objects to the lower court’s decision to grant a ‘constitutional exemption’ resembling a regulatory framework for assisted suicide.”


Ms. Taylor, who has Lou Gehrig’s disease, or ALS, hailed the lower court’s ruling because it gives her control over when and how she dies.


In her complex, 395-page judgment, Judge Smith said the ban on physician-assisted suicide violates two sections of the charter of rights covering the right to equality and the right to life, liberty and security of the person. She said the law must allow for doctor-assisted suicide in cases where patients have a serious illness or disability and are experiencing intolerable suffering. Such patients must ask for the help, must be free of coercion and cannot be clinically depressed, the ruling noted.

Would you want the right to assisted suicide if you had a terminal disease with no hope for recovery?

Yes, tenni, I bloody well would... rather die in me sleep wen me body just tells itself its time 2 go (tho like life lots and the living of it so dont really want 2 go at all.. but am afraid it doesnt work that way).. but if I was terminally ill, then yes, choosing the moment of my demise is something I believe should be a basic human right.. actually... I go further.. I think ending our lives whenever we choose should be considered such, but I'm sure most would disagree,, a very contentious issue.. often involving great dollops of selfishness... but depriving the terminally ill of their right to end their lives also involves great dollops of that...

The right to life btw... if one decides to surrender that right, is that not an essential liberty? It surely includes the right to end it and by depriving people of that right it is an infringement of that liberty...

[csrakate]

Would you want the right to assisted suicide if you had a terminal disease with no hope for recovery?


ABSOLUTELY!!!

[Long Duck Dong]

no, I would perfer to do it myself as I would not like to burden another person with the job of helping me..... its already well known to my doctor and its on my medical records that I would take that road... its one of the advantages of having a mental illness, I can say things like that and get away with it... a normal person would be looked at more closely

[tenni]

I do not think that Canada has created the "rules" of how a person's life has ended yet. This is the second case by an ALS victim that has reached the Supreme Court and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms have come in to play. Thank you Mr Pierre Trudeau for our wonderful Charter in our Constitution! Same Sex Marriage, discrimination against transgendered and terminally ill people owe a good amount to Pierre.

As to the question of burdening someone else with having the kill you. This issue has been resolved in Holland(I recall). I saw a documentary on the the process. There are interviews by "real" counsellors with doctorates in Psych or MD in psychiatry who assess the mental stability of the person requesting to end their life. They showed quite an interesting process as to how it is done in Holland. After being found of sound mind and meeting the criteria of terminally ill and a few others, the actual process was shown in the documentary.

The person mixing the concoctions had to call someone (forgot their credentials title) several times informing them of the stage before the process moved on to the next stage the person was asked if they wanted to proceed.

The very last act is not done by the practioner. The ill person is informed that should they do an act that they will die. The person in the documentary had something like ALS and mobility was difficult. When they flipped a switch, it started a timer that would inject the final dose to kill through the IV drip. The vicitim pulls that switch and in the case of the documentary it was with his mouth. The timer begins. Then other medications are given to the victim and these are sedatives. The victim drinks them on their own after picking the flavour. They fall asleep. Again, the practioner makes phone calls at each stage. After the timer switches and the final injection drip is done, the practioner checks for a heart beat. They call the police. The police come and determine that the procedure followed the "rules". A corner also comes and the paperwork is done. The environment that this is done in is an apartment and not a hospital looking place.

So if Canada does let this go, such similar rules would probably be developed. However, the government is resisting. The Supreme Court is now being "fixed" by the government by placing more "conservative" jurists. Still, Canada's Supreme Court has so far resisted the political interference. Canadians do not know who the Supreme Court jurists are because the jurist do not give interviews etc and the media seems to respect the dignity by not referring to certain jurists as being seen as liberal or conservative like in the US. The Supreme Court jurists do not seek out publicity. So far they do not have to go before a political television sham.

A more liberal government also challenged the ruling on same sex marriage and the Charter. It was a series of provincial Supreme Courts that led to the final federal decision for same sex marriage. This time the conservative government is challenging rather than a series of provincial Supreme Court decisions.

It will be interesting.

Yes, I would like the option to decide the end point of my life if terminally ill.

[darkeyes]

no, I would perfer to do it myself as I would not like to burden another person with the job of helping me..... its already well known to my doctor and its on my medical records that I would take that road... its one of the advantages of having a mental illness, I can say things like that and get away with it... a normal person would be looked at more closely
U do it yasel Duckie.. is ok with me.. but so many people try and botch it.. end up alive but crippled in some way and in a psychiatric ward or in care in some way so prevented from so doing... not saying people shouldnt be able to, but medics know at least as much as how to bump peeps off painlessly as the ordinary lay person.. and that it takes the burden off people who do it? I accept that, though I doubt very much whether it will be a burden for most.. more a blessed relief that they have ended suffering of a human being in distress.. regretful, but then we regret the passing of any human being however they go... well some do.. I do...:)

[void()]

The right to life btw... if one decides to surrender that right, is that not an essential liberty? It surely includes the right to end it and by depriving people of that right it is an infringement of that liberty...


Thinking rationally, I much agree with your statement. This is an issue I have discussed with those close at lucid periods, i.e. when in my 'right' mind. I conclude that one ought to be allowed to choose their own time and terms.

Can also recall parts of society, rural and pastoral some may be, where elders would choose guides to journey with into forests and wilds. The younger guides would attend the elder and be the only one to return from visiting the wilds. No one would find any evidence of anything foul.

Everyone in the area would understand there was nothing foul involved. An elder took a peaceful walk back home with a young attendant. In some cultures this younger attendant would then represent that elder, as to be a successor.

Why laws make such an act of dignity wrong now, is beyond me.